Varieties of Cognitive Semantic Structure

1
Varieties of Cognitive Semantic Structure
Timothy C. Clausner HRL Laboratories Malibu, CA
2
Varieties of Approaches to Word Meaning
Building Blocks Theories of Meaning Semantic
Primitives Word meanings are collections of
atomic meanings Scaffolding Theories of
Meaning Semantic Networks Semantic
Fields Words have meaning in relation to other
word meanings Semantic Frames/Domains Words
have meaning in relation to background knowledge
3
SEMANTIC PRIMITIVES
A crosslinguistic approach to semantic
primitives Anna Wierzbickas (1972, , 1992)
hypothetical set of universal primitives which
correspond to indefinable lexical items found
across languages I, you, someone, something,
this, say, want, dont want (i.e. no), feel,
think, know, where, good additional
candidates when, can, like, the same, kind of,
after, do, happen, bad, all , because, if, and
two lesser candidates part, become, imagine
and world All other concepts are defined in
terms of the above minimal set, including those
which are very simple and widespread (e.g.
people).
4
Language independent definitions
An attempt to characterize the central meaning
of concepts in terms of universal semantic
primitives. distinguish concepts by appealing
to differences in encyclopedic knowledge Define
the English word coward as follows I think I
should do Y I dont want to do it if I do it,
something bad could happen to me. Define the
English word courageous as follows I think I
should do Y because of this, I want to do it I
want to think I will do it.
5
Its difficult to know which concepts might be
atomic. other, time and place appear in the
(1988) list but do not appear in the (1992)
list Presumably, the same replaced other,
after and when replaced time where replaced
place can, all and bad are new. do, happen,
because, and if are very simple widespread
concepts definable in terms of primitives yet
these are now treated as primitive concepts.
6
Conceptual Dependency approach to semantic
primitives
Roger Shank (1972) ptrans transfer of location
of an object atrans transfer of possession of an
object mtrans transfer of information mbuild con
structs a thought in the mind ingest taking in
of an object by an animal to its
innards move movement of a bodypart of an
animal propel application of a physical force to
an object attend directing a sense organ to an
object John moved the book John ? ptrans ?
book John gave Mary a book ??Mary John ?
atrans ? book ? ? John Assumes an
infinite set of primitive things (e.g. book)
7
Problems with the semantic primitives theories
1. Not Enough Primitives John atrans book
is ambiguous between gave a book, kick,
kiss, cold, hand, headache 2. Inferences not
associated with the primitives How do we
distinguish drive from ptrans? Is John still
ptransing when at a stop light? 3. Too much
detail to specify - we might include wrong
facts What things do we assume happen when
driving? (use fuel, wear and tear, people get
lost, ) Using lexical items as semantic
representations requires many rules that infer
the same conclusion. AGENT John drove DEST store
? AGENT John AT store
went ran walked...
8
A perceptual approach to semantic primitives
George Miller Philip Johnson-Laird
(1976) Table OBJECT that is CONNECTED and
RIGID, with a FLAT, HORIZONTAL, TOP, supported
by VERTICAL legs Defines the form, but not the
function, nor the social aspects. Abstract
concepts have no perceptual aspects (e.g. know,
promise) No experimental evidence shows that
meanings are collections of atomic
meanings. However, there is no proof that
semantic primitives theory is wrong.
9
Network Theories
Treats word meanings as linked together in a
interconnected web specifying the ways that
word meanings are related. Synonyms donkey -
ass Antonyms up - down Co-odinates Monday -
Tuesday Collocations spring - break Superordinates
dog - animal
10
Semantic Field Theory
Words have meaning in relation to other
words Trier (1934) Lyons (1977) Lehrer (1974),
Kittay (1989) The meaning of Tuesday is the
closed lexical class SundayMondayTuesdayWed
nesdayThursdayFridaySaturday each
word/concept is defined relative to one
another Tuesday is the successor of Monday
in a lexical cycle
11
Frames and Domains
Frames (Minsky 1974) Frame semantics (Fillmore
1975, 1977) Searle (1979) presupposed
background A concept stands in relation to its
Conceptual periphery Background
knowledge Context Tuesday is understood
relative the calendar frame the frame is a
schematization of experience of the daily solar
cycle socio-culturally defined 7-day week (5
work, 2 weekend)
12
Frames
Frames are conceptual prerequisites for
understanding word meaning. MORAL ACTS lie,
steal, cheat, tease MEALS breakfast, lunch,
dinner TOOL screwdriver, hammer, saw, scissors,
drill KINSHIP aunt, uncle, cousin, grandmother,
grandfather COOKING boil, fry, bake
13
What's Cognitive about Cognitive
Linguistics? (Raymond Gibbs ICLA2
1991) Cognitive linguistics is not a
philosophical stance about the interaction of
mind and language. Rather is a particular
research strategy that seeks correspondences
between human conceptual structure and linguistic
structure and behavior. Cognitive linguistics
is especially cognitive, because it focuses on
the contents not just the architecture of human
conceptual knowledge. The Strategy of
Cognitive Linguistics infer something about
human conceptual knowledge from the analysis of
systematic patterns of linguistic structure and
behavior. (see Croft Cruse 2004. Cognitive
Linguistics)
14
Some Elements of Cognitive Linguistics Lexical
organization is a reflection of the cognitive
structures it symbolizes No rule-lexicon
dichotomy Instantiation-schema Profile-base
(Fillmores concept-frame) Basic-abstract
domains
15
Cognitive Semantics
(from Len Talmy, ICLC 2003. How Language
Directs Attention) The ensemble of a words
meanings is more salient than its component
meanings pry I pried the board off the wall I
pulled the board off the wall I flipped the board
off the wall I popped the board off the wall I
peeled the board off the wall
16
Domains
Lakoff Johnson (1980), Lakoff (1987), Langacker
(1987) Word meaning is understood relative to
the structured background knowledge of
experiences and beliefs This knowledge is
organized into experiential domains,
e.g., SPACE, TIME, EMOTIONS, FAMILY
ACTIVITIES, PHYSICAL OBJECTS, LIVING
THINGS Experiential Domain a multidimensional
structured whole arising naturally from experience
17
Domains
Domain Matrix Most concepts involve many
domains bird PHYSICAL OBJECTS, LIVING THINGS,
SPACE, TIME mother GENETIC, BIOLOGICAL,
SOCIAL birth mother, surrogate mother, foster
mother newspaper PHYSICAL OBJECT, SOCIAL,
INFORMATION the newspaper went under (when the
publisher was sued) the newspaper went under
(when I dropped it in the pool) the newspaper
has an interesting feature article
18
Domains
Langacker (1987, 1991) Relevant Cognitive
Abilites attention and activation Concepts are
patterns of activation in the encyclopedic
knowledge network Domain the background
knowledge network presupposed by a concept. (the
domains necessary to understand a word)
Profile the activated part of the network (the
concept associated with a word) A linguistic
meaning is a concept profile which is symbolized
by a linguistic expression. Word meaning is a
point of entry into the encyclopedic knowledge
network
profile
KINSHIP DOMAIN
word
19
Category-Specific Impairments

• Objects, Actions, Letters, Numbers, Colors
• (Goodglass, Kein, Carey Jones 1966)
• Colors (Geshwind Fusillo 1966)
• Abstract Words (Marshall Newcomb 1966)
• Concrete Words (Warrington 1975
• Warrington Shallice 1984)
• Animate Objects (Warrington Shallice 1984
• Warrington McCarthy 1987)
• Fruits and Vegetables (Hart, Bernt Caramazza
  1985)
• Verbs (Miceli, Silveri, Villa Caramazza 1984
• McCarthy Washington 1985)
• Nouns (Zingeser Berndt 1988)
• Body Parts (Dennis 1976)
• Geographic Names (McKenna Warrington 1978)
• Proper Names (McKenna Warrington 1980)

20
Category-Specific Impairments Patient JJ
AE Hillis and A Caramazza (1991).
Category-specific naming and comprehension
impairment a double dissociation Brain, Vol 114,
Issue 5 2081-2094.
Examples of Animals Correctly Named Orally and in
Writing shark, crab, donkey, parrot, ostrich,
whale, alligator, kangaroo Examples of
Non-Animals Incorrectly Named Orally and in
Writing Stimulus Oral Response Written
Response elbow knee hand bench chair cherry grap
e plumb apricot pear pears shirt silk
dressing coate
Example Definitions Animals
21
Category-Specific Impairments Patient PS
AE Hillis and A Caramazza (1991).
Category-specific naming and comprehension
impairment a double dissociation Brain, Vol 114,
Issue 5 2081-2094.
Examples of Animals Vegetables Named
Incorrectly Stimulus Oral Response Written
Response kangaroo giraffe no response walrus clam
seal bean peas pea carrot onion cyoucumber Exam
ples of Items from Other Categories Named
Correctly Orally and in Writing elbow, bench,
jacket, helicopter, sweater
Example Definitions apricot like a peach, only
smaller. You can buy them canned or dried or
fresh. celery turns yellow if you leave it too
long. You can stem it and poor melted cheese on
it. I dont know if you can eat it raw or
not. heron a fish
22
The Structure of Domains
The meaning of circle is the profile
circle in the domain SPACE The meaning of arc
is the profile arc in the domain CIRCLE The
meaning of chord is the profile chord in the
domain CIRCLE Any concept may function as the
domain for other concepts.
23
Concept-Domain Relation
SPACE-CIRCLE-CHORD SPACE-BODY-ARM-HAND-FINGER
Clausner Croft (1999) The Concept-Domain
relation is similar to a Part-Whole Relation, and
contrasts with taxonomic ISA hierarchies. chair
table dresser bed ISA furniture ISA
thing Chord presupposes a circle, but a chord is
not a kind of circle. Basic Domains are those
which presuppose no other domains, grounded in
bodily/perceptual experience e.g., SPACE,
TIME, PITCH, TEMPERATURE, EMOTION Meaning
structures include domain relations, among
others. bird SHAPE, SIZE, SPACE LIVING
THING, TIME, LIFE PHYSICAL OBJECT, MATTER
24
Container is an Image Schematic Domain Structure
Clausner (1994) Clausner Croft (1999)
25
IMAGE SCHEMAS
(Johnson 1987 Lakoff 1987 Lakoff and Turner
1989 Talmy 1977) Embodied organizing structures
pervasive in experience Structure preserved in
metaphor relations Clausner Croft (1999)
Clausner (1993, 1994, in press)
SPACE CONTAINER SCALE UP-DOWN CONTAINMENT PATH
FRONT-BACK IN-OUT LEFT-RIGHT SURFACE NEAR-FAR F
ULL-EMPTY CONTENT FORCE UNITY/MULTIPLICITY ID
ENTITY BALANCE MERGING MATCHING COUNTERFORCE CO
LLECTION SUPERIMPOSITION COMPULSION SPLITTING AT
TRACTION ITERATION EXISTENCE RESTRAINT PART-WHOLE
REMOVAL ENABLEMENT MASS-COUNT BOUNDED
SPACE BLOCKAGE LINK DIVERSION
26
Configurational vs. Locational Construals
Configuration
Location
27
Properties of Domains
Summary of Location-Configuration Construals in
Basic Domains (Clausner Croft
1999) Reference Relative Domain Configurati
on Location Location SPACE cube,
triangle here there, home TIME daytime now tom
orrow, then PITCH chord (calibrated) note,
A TEMP lukewarm hot, cool COLOR
? (focal) red red, dark, light LOUDNESS
noise silence loud, quiet SIMILARITY
correlation identity same, different Domains
function as a base for locational or
configurational profiles.
28
SCALE Image Schema
Configurational construal in the domain of
SCALE Locational construal in the domain of
SCALE
(Clausner Croft 1999) Image schemas support
locational and configurational profiles.
29
Metaphor
A metaphor is a relation between two disparate
domains AN ARGUMENT IS A BUILDING Source
domain ? Target domain ARGUMENT ?
BUILDING Metaphors are conventional (stored)
domain relations manifested by ordinary
linguistic expressions. We need to buttress the
theory with more evidence Thats a sound
argument Your argument has a strong
foundation We demolished their theory
30
Computational Models of Metaphor
Lytinen, Burridge Kirtner (1992) LINK CHANGE
ALTITUDE ? CHANGE VALUE (change)
?X (change) ?X (object) NUMBER the
stock market went through the roof PHYS OBJ ?
?X (assoc-number) (?X NUMBER) VP ?
VP (head rep) PIERCE (head rep) CHANGE
ALTITUDE (head object rep) ROOF (head rep
change) (head obj word) roof (head rep
change rate) FAST (head inf) go J. Maritin
(1990) MIDAS Learn a kill-terminate-sense for
How can I kill a process? LIVING THING
NON-LIVING THING LIVING THING PROCESS KILL
VICTIM TERMINATE PROCESS S. Narayanan
(1997) KARMA Knowledge-based Action
Representations for Metaphor and Aspect
ISA
ISA
31
Analogy
Target is like Source Juliet is like the
sun Cigarettes are like time bombs Phonological
structure is and is like forms both source
and target domain concepts are explicit Semantic
structure Unlike conventional metaphor,
structure mapping in analogy is not
conventional. Conventional metaphors are stored
domain relations. Analogies are a process of
domain structure mapping.
32
The Rutherford analogy The atom is like the
solar system Solar system maps onto Atomic
system Gentner (1983, 1987) Analogy maps
structural relations, but not properties or
objects sun nucleus Things gas light
Properties hot massive yellow Rel
ations revolves around ok attracts ok more
massive than ok electron is to nucleus as
planet is to sun Object/property similarity is
not very interesting or informative. The sun is
like an orange
33
Metaphors vary in Schematicity
(Clausner and Croft 1997) THEORIES AND ARGUMENTS
ARE BUILDINGS Is that the foundation of your
theory? the theory needs more support we need
to buttress the theory with solid arguments Not
any aspect of the ARGUMENT domain can be profiled
by the metaphor Content Progress Basicness
Strength Structure Obviousness Directness
Clarity Recast at the proper level of
schematicity THE CONVINCINGNESS OF AN ARGUMENT
IS THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF A BUILDING Is
that the foundation of your argument? Is that
the basement of your argument?
34
There is a systematic difference between
acceptable and unacceptable expressions as rated
by 40 participants on a 0 to 4 scale. (mean
rating 3.2) (mean rating of 1.0) buttress attic
collapse basement construct broken
pipe fall chimney form corner foundation corr
idors shaky hallways solid plumbing sound ra
fters strengthen wall strong window stable w
iring stand support unsound unstable BUILDING
INTEGRITY NON-STRUCTURAL BUILDING ELEMENTS
35
Metaphors vary in Productivity
(Clausner and Croft 1997) High
Productivity High productivity schema A high
proportion of a metaphor schemas range can be
instantiated as expressions.
Nearly any concept from the domain CONVINCINGNESS
OF AN ARGUMENT can be expressed in terms of
STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF A BUILDING.
36
The Metaphor MORE IS UP has High Productivity
(examples from Lakoff Johnson 1980)
CONSCIOUS IS UP - UNCONSCIOUS IS DOWN Wake up -
He fell asleep HEALTH AND LIFE ARE UP -
SICKNESS AND DEATH ARE DOWN He's at the peak of
health - He came down with the flu. HAVING
CONTROL OR FORCE IS UP - BEING SUBJECT TO
CONTROL OR FORCE IS DOWN I am on top of this
situation - He fell from power. MORE QUANTITY IS
UP - LESS QUANTITY IS DOWN The number of books
printed every year keeps going up - The number of
errors he made is incredibly low. HIGH STATUS IS
UP - LOW STATUS IS DOWN She'll rise to the top
- She fell in status. GOOD IS UP - BAD IS
DOWN Things are looking up - Things are at an
all-time low. VIRTUE IS UP - DEPRAVITY IS
DOWN She is an upstanding citizen - That was a
low-down thing to do. UNKNOWN IS UP - KNOWN IS
DOWN That's up in the air - The matter is
settled.
37
Metaphor Domain Relations and Derivational
Schemas (Clausner and Croft 1997)
The proportion of a schemas range which can be
instantiated as expressions in semantic and
morphological structure Semantic High
Productivity (Conventional metaphorical
expressions) Nearly any concept from the domain
CONVINCINGNESS OF AN ARGUMENT can be expressed in
terms of structural integrity of a building.
Morphological High Productivity (Regular
derivational forms)
38
Semantic Semi-Productivity (Transparent Idioms)
spill the beans let the cat out of the
bag blow the whistle blow the lid
off loose lips
Morphological Semi-Productivity (Irregular
derivational forms)
spinspun clingclung slinkslunk
digdug winwon flingflung sneaksnuck dragdrug
hanghung stickstuck hanghung strikestruck
slingslung shakeshuck stingstung stringstr
ung swingswung wringwrung
39
Metaphors in Language and Vision
MORE IS UP LESS IS DOWN
Conceptual metaphor
Metaphorical expressions
40
Clausner (2002) How metaphors are productive of
spatial-graphical expressions.
High productivity
Semi-productivity
Nonproductivity
Linguistic Conventional metaphorical
Transparent idioms Opaque idioms Expressions expr
essions Spatial- Conventional spatial
graphs Transparent Opaque graphical spatial
idioms spatial idioms expressions
The same semantic principles which account for
metaphor productivity are manifested by
linguistic expressions and spatial-graphical
expressions.